First off I remember when it was revealed that Karl rove used a commercial email provider the entire time he worked in WH to avoid disclosure and it worked during the US Asst Attorney scandal so there is a precedent.2) I am a little confused by the reporting. It keeps emphasizing that she did not have a "public" email act. Does this mean she did not have a .Gov acct or that she did not have a "public" act. that was publiched and accessible to all? Many places where an official, in private enterprise and Government service, are given at least 2 acctounts one as a "public" account, that in reality is just routed to the office for review by interns, and a "private" account that is in house and for any confidential or secure communications.3rd) If in reality she had neither and the IT staff never set one up for her the entire IT staff should be dismissed for cause. She can choose as to whether to use an .gov address or not and the blame would land on her but the establishment of one rests upon the IT staff and failure to do so would absolve her.The IT staff is supposed to know the rules and laws and do everything possible to comply with them. Failure to establish this account would be a violation by them. If they did establish one and she did not use it would absolve the IT staff and shift the blame to her.